I am extremely curious about Buddhism and I've read one book about Buddhism in general and one book specifically about Zen Buddhism.

But there are many things I don't agree with, such as the whole idea that by extinguishing all your biases about everything leads to enlightenment (which is impossible. I don't believe that there is not such thing as a human being, being completely objective about everything. Even the language that you learn changes the way that you perceive things with your brain. It is just so misleading and frankly dishonest to say that you are completely objective about everything because than it leads many people to believe that everything you say is completely true so it's an excellent way to manipulate people.I also read a bit on Mahayana Buddhism and I disagreed with plenty of things that were said there as well.There are many other things that bother me about it but, what do you guys think?Are there any Buddhists who can explain how they feel about Buddhism?

What I am about to tell you has no difference weather you believe me or not on it's validity because you can verify this for your self,

Buddha was predicted to come to earth in the Vedic literature way before bhuddha arrived, Lord Buddha is Lord Krisna incarnated, lord Krisna manifests and comes to earth to establish religious principles when they become less and less practiced in society, in the times of Lord Buddha, religious principles were low and humanity was very atheistic, Lord Krisna out of kindness came to earth as Lord Buddha to trick the atheists into accepting religious principles knowing that atheists would not accept them if associated with God.

I am typing of my phone but will try to find you the links that confirm this.

I am typing on my phone but could provide you the links that confirm this tomorrow if you like. Also typing of my phone isn't as good so can't really see or get my messages over properly. But I think I covered it.

At 6/23/2013 5:43:32 PM, johnlubba wrote:I am typing on my phone but could provide you the links that confirm this tomorrow if you like. Also typing of my phone isn't as good so can't really see or get my messages over properly. But I think I covered it.

It won't let me copy and paste the purport, it comes out encrypted, check the Veda Base for Srimad Bhagvatam first canto Chapter 3 verse 24...

SB 1.3.24: Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of A"jan&#257;, in the province of Gay&#257;, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.

Buddhism (especially Zen) is extremely interesting and quite thought provoking if one can divorce the ethical/life teachings of the Buddha from the mystic supernaturalism that came after.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 6/23/2013 7:01:01 PM, Noumena wrote:Buddhism (especially Zen) is extremely interesting and quite thought provoking if one can divorce the ethical/life teachings of the Buddha from the mystic supernaturalism that came after.

Yes Zen is interesting but I have a huge problem with the whole "you must get rid of all your biases" concept. That is quite likely impossible to do. Human beings are emotional, subjective creatures.

At 6/23/2013 7:01:01 PM, Noumena wrote:Buddhism (especially Zen) is extremely interesting and quite thought provoking if one can divorce the ethical/life teachings of the Buddha from the mystic supernaturalism that came after.

Yes Zen is interesting but I have a huge problem with the whole "you must get rid of all your biases" concept. That is quite likely impossible to do. Human beings are emotional, subjective creatures.

I don't see it as biases as much as desires/attachments. Even if such a feat is impossible to accomplish, I can't really argue that (as a methodology for self-improvement) it wouldn't be worthwhile.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 6/23/2013 5:40:07 PM, johnlubba wrote:Ok, that sums that up nicely for me.

What I am about to tell you has no difference weather you believe me or not on it's validity because you can verify this for your self,

Buddha was predicted to come to earth in the Vedic literature way before bhuddha arrived, Lord Buddha is Lord Krisna incarnated, lord Krisna manifests and comes to earth to establish religious principles when they become less and less practiced in society, in the times of Lord Buddha, religious principles were low and humanity was very atheistic, Lord Krisna out of kindness came to earth as Lord Buddha to trick the atheists into accepting religious principles knowing that atheists would not accept them if associated with God.

I am typing of my phone but will try to find you the links that confirm this.

An atheist may be said to be the negation of one who believes in the existence of a god (theist). God, defined in theistic terms, is necessarily bounded by whatever attributes are assigned to him.

However, atman/brahman lacks all attributes. This includes intentionality, what we call the ability to think "about" something. This is because if something is one without a second, it has no object on which to direct thoughts. Though we identify atman with chit (pure consciousness), it must be emphasized that this pure consciousness, lacking intentionality as well as self-affirmation/ego/"I"-ness, is not even remotely like that consciousness manifested by the individual soul/jiva.

For those who could not understand the true nature of brahman, the theist's many Gods, such all non-Vedantic concepts of Yahweh, Vishnu, and Shiva were revealed even though they are nothing but a result of ignorance and delusion (maya).

Once the theist became capable of higher knowledge, he understands that what he once deified as "God" is really nothing but his true self.

Advaita vedanta, properly understood, is best considered ATHEIST rather than THEIST because brahman is NOT the theistic god anymore than a bird or rock is brahman.

However, the Vedas, with its passages of worship of the Gods leading to material gain, TRICKED THE THEISTS into absorbing reality and casing aside the concept of anything different from the self. It appealed to the religious man's desires for power in this life and the next.

At 6/23/2013 5:40:07 PM, johnlubba wrote:Ok, that sums that up nicely for me.

What I am about to tell you has no difference weather you believe me or not on it's validity because you can verify this for your self,

Buddha was predicted to come to earth in the Vedic literature way before bhuddha arrived, Lord Buddha is Lord Krisna incarnated, lord Krisna manifests and comes to earth to establish religious principles when they become less and less practiced in society, in the times of Lord Buddha, religious principles were low and humanity was very atheistic, Lord Krisna out of kindness came to earth as Lord Buddha to trick the atheists into accepting religious principles knowing that atheists would not accept them if associated with God.

I am typing of my phone but will try to find you the links that confirm this.

An atheist may be said to be the negation of one who believes in the existence of a god (theist). God, defined in theistic terms, is necessarily bounded by whatever attributes are assigned to him.

However, atman/brahman lacks all attributes. This includes intentionality, what we call the ability to think "about" something. This is because if something is one without a second, it has no object on which to direct thoughts. Though we identify atman with chit (pure consciousness), it must be emphasized that this pure consciousness, lacking intentionality as well as self-affirmation/ego/"I"-ness, is not even remotely like that consciousness manifested by the individual soul/jiva.

For those who could not understand the true nature of brahman, the theist's many Gods, such all non-Vedantic concepts of Yahweh, Vishnu, and Shiva were revealed even though they are nothing but a result of ignorance and delusion (maya).

Once the theist became capable of higher knowledge, he understands that what he once deified as "God" is really nothing but his true self.

Advaita vedanta, properly understood, is best considered ATHEIST rather than THEIST because brahman is NOT the theistic god anymore than a bird or rock is brahman.

However, the Vedas, with its passages of worship of the Gods leading to material gain, TRICKED THE THEISTS into absorbing reality and casing aside the concept of anything different from the sl. It appealed to the religious man's desires for power in this life and tjxt.

Dude nice post, the only problem is that my post was not my opinion but direct from the Vedic Scriptures, your however is your own version of events and does not reflect the true meaning of the scriptures. But good post anyhow.

At 6/23/2013 5:43:32 PM, johnlubba wrote:I am typing on my phone but could provide you the links that confirm this tomorrow if you like. Also typing of my phone isn't as good so can't really see or get my messages over properly. But I think I covered it.

At 6/23/2013 7:01:01 PM, Noumena wrote:Buddhism (especially Zen) is extremely interesting and quite thought provoking if one can divorce the ethical/life teachings of the Buddha from the mystic supernaturalism that came after.

Yes Zen is interesting but I have a huge problem with the whole "you must get rid of all your biases" concept. That is quite likely impossible to do. Human beings are emotional, subjective creatures.

I understand this problem and have problems coming to terns with it also, but essentially what it tries to portray is detachment from making judgements or having expectations, one way to look at it is to observe the monks who actually devote their entire lives living by this rule and to decide weather they have a point, are they spiritually content being totally detached from material life.??? Only you can decide this for yourself.

At 6/23/2013 5:27:12 PM, AnarchistJewels wrote:I am extremely curious about Buddhism and I've read one book about Buddhism in general and one book specifically about Zen Buddhism.

But there are many things I don't agree with, such as the whole idea that by extinguishing all your biases about everything leads to enlightenment (which is impossible. I don't believe that there is not such thing as a human being, being completely objective about everything. Even the language that you learn changes the way that you perceive things with your brain. It is just so misleading and frankly dishonest to say that you are completely objective about everything because than it leads many people to believe that everything you say is completely true so it's an excellent way to manipulate people.I also read a bit on Mahayana Buddhism and I disagreed with plenty of things that were said there as well.There are many other things that bother me about it but, what do you guys think?Are there any Buddhists who can explain how they feel about Buddhism?

Just like any religion or life standard, one has to cut through the BS and keep the gems. My mother in law is Buddhist and is more focused on superstition and lighting candles rather than living by the tenets.

I highly recommend Jack Cornfield. I think it is called After the Ecstasy the Laundry. He uses his experience and highlights The Middle Way by showing his transition from the Buddhist Monastery to regular life back in the US.

The real good Buddhist leaders recognize that enlightenment is not some metaphysical bs state but an end goal. Even the Dali Lama gets angry, but since he has practiced compassion every day, he can take that anger and not let it twist his judgement in the long run. There are not many of us on this earth who are not enslaved to the very human emotion of revenge.

Lastly, I read a book about a guy, forgot his name, who claims to have reached enlightenment. His intent was to explain it was very different than what the masters thought it was. His end gig though was that he could lie in bed for hours in the morning, just being. He would look at a mother beating a child who would not stop crying and would see no difference between the mother and the child. It was like justice was thrown out the window and there was no judgement.

It sounded very much like a state if we were all in, we would just starve to death, which we know is complete ridiculousness.

Keep reading and do the right thing by throwing out the BS, but there is alot of good in the Buddhist tenets that if most lived by we would find peace on earth. No other religion could make that claim.

At 6/23/2013 5:40:07 PM, johnlubba wrote:Ok, that sums that up nicely for me.

What I am about to tell you has no difference weather you believe me or not on it's validity because you can verify this for your self,

Buddha was predicted to come to earth in the Vedic literature way before bhuddha arrived, Lord Buddha is Lord Krisna incarnated, lord Krisna manifests and comes to earth to establish religious principles when they become less and less practiced in society, in the times of Lord Buddha, religious principles were low and humanity was very atheistic, Lord Krisna out of kindness came to earth as Lord Buddha to trick the atheists into accepting religious principles knowing that atheists would not accept them if associated with God.

I am typing of my phone but will try to find you the links that confirm this.

An atheist may be said to be the negation of one who believes in the existence of a god (theist). God, defined in theistic terms, is necessarily bounded by whatever attributes are assigned to him.

However, atman/brahman lacks all attributes. This includes intentionality, what we call the ability to think "about" something. This is because if something is one without a second, it has no object on which to direct thoughts. Though we identify atman with chit (pure consciousness), it must be emphasized that this pure consciousness, lacking intentionality as well as self-affirmation/ego/"I"-ness, is not even remotely like that consciousness manifested by the individual soul/jiva.

For those who could not understand the true nature of brahman, the theist's many Gods, such all non-Vedantic concepts of Yahweh, Vishnu, and Shiva were revealed even though they are nothing but a result of ignorance and delusion (maya).

Once the theist became capable of higher knowledge, he understands that what he once deified as "God" is really nothing but his true self.

Advaita vedanta, properly understood, is best considered ATHEIST rather than THEIST because brahman is NOT the theistic god anymore than a bird or rock is brahman.

However, the Vedas, with its passages of worship of the Gods leading to material gain, TRICKED THE THEISTS into absorbing reality and casing aside the concept of anything different from the sl. It appealed to the religious man's desires for power in this life and tjxt.

Dude nice post, the only problem is that my post was not my opinion but direct from the Vedic Scriptures, your however is your own version of events and does not reflect the true meaning of the scriptures. But good post anyhow.

Fair enough.

Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile Buddha's teaching of no Atman/Brahma with Krishna's wish? It is generally thought that the doctrine of anatta is incomptaible with atman.

This isn't a test. I'm genuinely curious.

"The denial of an imperishable Atman is common ground for all systems of Hinayana as well as Mahayana, and there is, therefore, no reason for the assumption that Buddhist tradition, unanimous on that point, has deviated from the original doctrine of the Buddha. If the Buddha, contrary to the Buddhist tradition, had actually proclaimed a transcendental Atman, a reminiscence of it would have been preserved somehow by one of the older sects."

At 6/23/2013 5:27:12 PM, AnarchistJewels wrote:I am extremely curious about Buddhism and I've read one book about Buddhism in general and one book specifically about Zen Buddhism.

But there are many things I don't agree with, such as the whole idea that by extinguishing all your biases about everything leads to enlightenment (which is impossible. I don't believe that there is not such thing as a human being, being completely objective about everything. Even the language that you learn changes the way that you perceive things with your brain. It is just so misleading and frankly dishonest to say that you are completely objective about everything because than it leads many people to believe that everything you say is completely true so it's an excellent way to manipulate people.I also read a bit on Mahayana Buddhism and I disagreed with plenty of things that were said there as well.There are many other things that bother me about it but, what do you guys think?Are there any Buddhists who can explain how they feel about Buddhism?

Just like any religion or life standard, one has to cut through the BS and keep the gems. My mother in law is Buddhist and is more focused on superstition and lighting candles rather than living by the tenets.

I highly recommend Jack Cornfield. I think it is called After the Ecstasy the Laundry. He uses his experience and highlights The Middle Way by showing his transition from the Buddhist Monastery to regular life back in the US.

The real good Buddhist leaders recognize that enlightenment is not some metaphysical bs state but an end goal. Even the Dali Lama gets angry, but since he has practiced compassion every day, he can take that anger and not let it twist his judgement in the long run. There are not many of us on this earth who are not enslaved to the very human emotion of revenge.

Lastly, I read a book about a guy, forgot his name, who claims to have reached enlightenment. His intent was to explain it was very different than what the masters thought it was. His end gig though was that he could lie in bed for hours in the morning, just being. He would look at a mother beating a child who would not stop crying and would see no difference between the mother and the child. It was like justice was thrown out the window and there was no judgement.

It sounded very much like a state if we were all in, we would just starve to death, which we know is complete ridiculousness.

Keep reading and do the right thing by throwing out the BS, but there is alot of good in the Buddhist tenets that if most lived by we would find peace on earth. No other religion could make that claim.

This is why I prefer Vedanta. You can live life acting out your duty or needs, as long as you do not desire the fruits of your labor and see your true self in the men you are fighting. You can save the lives of the weak from those who would do damage as long as you are not driven by ego-centric desire. You can keep your body strong and healthy, but not just for the sake of being strong/healthy. There are infinite paths in Vedanta, all leading to the same conclusion. If you're down to go hardcore, then you can wander the woods eating berries which have already fallen from trees.

And, as I started with, there's no need to jump on board with any kind of theistic God in order to be Vedantic. You really don't even need to believe in an individual soul which reincarnates into another. It's a bit tougher to make the intellectual leap, and it makes meditation a bit more strenuous, but altogether worth it when you see what the end-goal is.

At 6/24/2013 1:25:56 PM, 000ike wrote:I won't lie, I don't know much about Buddhism beyond the religion unit from World History but my initial impression is that it's classic animistic bullsh!t.

World history is great for a geo-political and context-dependent understanding of different stages of a religion's evolution through generations.

It sucks at getting to the philosophical roots of non-western religions. Usually drops off around the point where mystics start contradicting themselves in the same sentence, assuming it's just mental jibberish.